If it were left to his immediate peers, with Andy Murray foremost among them, then there would be no question that Roger Federer should be regarded as the best tennis player ever. His 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 US Open final victory over Murray came at the end of what has been an awkward year in Federer's exalted terms, and the vast majority of those in the Arthur Ashe Stadium were overjoyed to see him replicate the form that has seen him win the title at Flushing Meadows every year since 2004. Some viewed it as redemption, though the Swiss was not keen on that summation.

"I don't feel like I needed this win to prove myself," he said. "I don't think I'm at that point anymore. Of course, if I lose four straight times in majors in the first round, then obviously I have the point to prove. I was disappointed not winning the Olympics and losing the epic at Wimbledon against Rafa, but this was as big of a goal this season."

All arguments as to whether Federer is the greatest player ever centre on two other names, Rod Laver and Pete Sampras. It is clear that the Swiss will never emulate Laver's record of having won all four majors in the same year twice - the true grand slam. As for Sampras's all-time record of 14 slam wins, Federer is now one short of drawing level, and has already proved himself a significantly better player on clay than the American. It has been his misfortune, if such it is, to find himself playing at the same time as Rafael Nadal, who may prove to be the greatest clay-court player of all time.

Federer has yet to win the French Open title, leaving an elite five who have won all four majors - Laver, fellow Australian Roy Emerson, Don Budge of the US, Britain's own Fred Perry, and most recently Andre Agassi. Most would love him to make it six, yet if that is not to be, then it should never detract from the fact that Federer has played a quality of tennis over a period of five years that has thrilled the world, been a privilege to observe, and has never been bettered.

Of course, it cannot go on forever, and there was justifiable concern before this win over Murray that the best of Federer was in the past. No one could be sure how much a bout of glandular fever had really affected him earlier in the year when he lost to Serbia's Novak Djokovic in the semi-finals of the Australian Open, and also lost matches against players whom he had previously beaten with ease. The severity of his defeat by Nadal in the French Open accentuated his struggles and self-doubts, as did the loss, again against the young Spaniard and world No1, at Wimbledon. Then came the quarter-final defeat against James Blake in Beijing, a player whom Federer had previously beaten eight times out of eight.

Small wonder, then, that his defence of the title here was deemed to be under severe threat. Yet amid his singles tribulations, he won the Olympic doubles gold medal with fellow Swiss Stanislas Wawrinka. "I think that's what really made the big difference. It really made me forget about the losses and enjoy this tournament," Federer said. He had a tough five-set match against Russia's Igor Andreev, but the old Federer began to emerge against Djokovic in the semi-finals. The light had been turned back on and against an understandably drained Murray, Federer was at his refulgent best, becoming the only player to win five consecutive slams at two different majors.

"I would have been disappointed losing against Andy," he said. "It would have felt like missing an entire year, being so close but yet so far. Semis and finals don't help me a whole lot anymore in my career. It's all about the wins, and that's why this is huge - this is massive." Of that there is no doubt.